Update redirect/rewrite rules

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description states the tool deletes existing rules, which is a destructive behavior, contradicting the annotation destructiveHint=false. This contradiction renders the description misleading regarding the tool's side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses bold to highlight the destructive nature. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers key behaviors (replacement, deletion, priority) and API endpoint. It lacks details on response or error scenarios, but given no output schema, this is acceptable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no further semantics beyond stating the body is a list of rules and serviceId is required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool updates/replaces all redirect/rewrite rules for a service, using the verb 'update' and specifying full replacement. It distinguishes from siblings like render_add_route (adds one) and render_delete_route (deletes one).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains that it replaces all existing rules, deleting those not in the request, and notes priority from list order. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools like render_patch_route or render_add_route, leaving the agent to infer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.